Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/02

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Copyright

"Uncopyright" license

While license reviewing, I came across these files: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. The source webpage indicates that these works are "uncopyright"ed. The term "uncopyright" in this case comes via the hues global justice collective, which explains what they mean at http://uncopyright.org/about/#usage-section and http://uncopyright.org/about/#faq-section. In the FAQ section, they say that In uncopyrighting, the creator releases their copyrights altogether: no stipulations, no licensing, no issues. and equate "uncopyrighting" with CC0. Unlike CC0 (and the WTFPL and Unlicense), "uncopyright" does not appear to have any specific language or fallback legal terms for when a public domain release is not possible.

In my opinion, this statement is probably sufficient to constitute a public domain release in the US, but not so in a country with moral rights or other copyright protections that make a public domain release impossible. So I ask, is this license compatible with Commons? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the intent is clear enough. Removal under that rationale is pretty extreme deletionism, to my mind. Moral rights is not a copyright restriction either way. Is there actually a court case in another country which proves that a public domain dedication is actually impossible, or is that just a legal theory? I would still have to take the statement as an unrestricted license, anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
As for public domain grants being impossible, COM:L mentions that such grants are impossible in the EU without further justification. I don't have a citation at hand, but when I researched this a few years ago it mostly came down to un-waivable rights to attribution or a prohibition on copyright transfers. I did find this report from a German lawyer which contains an analysis of the German situation.
The reason I brought this here in the first place (that I forgot to mention in the original post) was to determine if a license template should be created for "uncopyright" or if {{Pd-author}} was good enough. Looking at pd-author, the terms there seem to be similar to the FAQ terms for uncopyright, so I do think it is acceptable though not preferred. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, moral rights often cannot be transferred or disclaimed. However I would find it odd that a transferrable right like the economic right (which is the part which relates to the "free" status) cannot be given up. I guess there is a technicality in German law, where everything must be a "license" since no rights can be transferred. The source was a 1995 court case which predates the EU copyright directive, and unsure if that changed anything. That is far from being true across the EU as a whole though.
As for a template... I would probably create a specific template for it. PD-author is a generalized template for public domain declarations, but it can be helpful to know the exact wording the author used, so if someone has explicitly chosen the uncopyright license/declaration then it would be best to document that fact, to my mind. Whether or not it's a "license" may be up for debate (it may still well be). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I threw {{Uncopyright}} together. Not quite sure on the wording and the structure of the uncopyright website didn't help in that regard. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Disavowed copyright - allow or not?

Wikisource have a template s:Template:PD-Disavowed, I don't know whether files tagged with this is allowed here or not. This seems not acceptable per COM:PCP, but Commons does allow {{Non-free graffiti}}. (Two files tagged in Wikisource are s:File:Images-ch9 letter.jpg and s:File:Zodiac-back-with-you.jpg, which may otherwise be in public domain per {{PD-US-1978-89}}.)--GZWDer (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I honestly can't think of a reason in US law for that template to apply. If we take someone being accused of being the author at face value (that they're not the author), almost anything they say about the work being in the public domain is irrelevant. They're not the author or the copyright holder, so they don't get to dictate the copyright status of the work. If they are truly the author, but disclaim any authorship, a public domain grant could be valid. In that case, however, we'd have absolutely no way to verify the validity of the grant: the author said they aren't the author, and thus can't release anything into the public domain. In either case, copyright protection doesn't just disappear because the author is unknown. It's an anonymous work and subject to the same rules as any other other work. Those specific images have just barely scraped by into the public domain by being published without compliance with the required formalities before 28 Feb 1989. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
If it's the actual author disavowing it, then it's more like PD-author. It would have to be a pretty weird situation for it to apply otherwise. Seems like it's used on Zodiac killer letters, and one other case which was either an 1894 publication or a much later hoax. I would probably use PD-US-no_notice and/or PD-US-1978-89 for the Zodiac ones, and PD-US-expired for the other one. The law said that a copyright notice with an incorrect year would be invalid if the year was more than one year later than actual publication, and would serve to be the starting year if before actual publication, so that one's starting year would be 1894 even if actually published much later. (As part of the evidence of that being a hoax, the form of copyright notice was much different in 1894 -- it did not use that form until the 1909 law.) I guess there is one other use, something published in 1975 but claimed to be much older and authored by someone else, which again (if true) would invalidate the copyright notice used on it in 1975, and (if not) would probably mean it was PD-author. There are always going to be weird cases with copyright, especially in areas which would likely never be litigated because there is virtually certainly never going to be somebody claiming copyright over them. Deletion doesn't seem right in these particular situations. Before 1989, such cases would probably involve either being PD-author or being published with no notice. Since then, harder, though stuff involved in crimes like the Zodiac killer may still have a weird status (though it may manifest in more of an extremely wide fair use allowance, perhaps to the point of their being no use which isn't fair). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Verdegaia.png

Hi! This picture is in Category:License review needed. License review is best for files where we can look on the web site and verify that the file is licensed freely. This photo is licensed with Template:PD-text. Can someone have a look and see if they agree? --MGA73 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

{{textlogo}}, possibly? I see no indication the logo is CC; and {{PD-text}} would not seem to be appropriate here. --Xover (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you! So either {{textlogo}} or a copyvio. I think it does look simple but not sure it is simple enough. Perhaps someone else have an idea? --MGA73 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Advice on migrating image from Wikipedia

Hi. I've found File:Dorothy Christian Hare.jpg (en Wikipedia) at Wikipedia with a non-free licence but identified that it has come from the UK's Imperial War Museum.[1] As it is the work of an official British photographer from 1917-1918, it probably qualifies for a PD licence similar to File:The Women's Royal Naval Service on the Home Front, 1917-1918 Q19705.jpg. Can I please have some advice on the best way to handle transferring the image to Commons?

  1. Should I sort out the licensing issues at Wikipedia and migrate the file to Commons (if that is possible)?
  2. Or perhaps migrate the file to Commons and then sort out the licensing issues here?
  3. Alternatively, should I reupload the image here and request deletion of the original version at Wikipedia?
  4. Finally, what do I do with the IWM logo in the image? Should I retain it in the file or crop it?

Any advice you can provide would be appreciated. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that looks to be PD-UKGov. For the licensing... preserving the upload history can be good if it's easy to migrate it (with or without changing the license), but we do want the largest size available at the source, so you'd need to re-upload anyways after migration. Uploading directly here and then deleting there can also work. For the watermark... could crop though that removes part of the image, or modify that area to remove it, or mark it with {{Watermark}}, or just leave it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Harry Potter studio tour- Life size Draco Malfoy dummy.jpg

Wax sculpture of the Harry Potter character en:Draco Malfoy which might not be properly licensed. The photo came from Flickr and the photo itself is probably licensed correctly; at the same time, though, it's also a derivative work since the wax figure itself is basically a 3D work of art which might still be considered protected by copyright. The figure was apparently part of the Harry Potter Studio Tour in London and there is FoP for publically displayed 3D works of art in the UK per COM:FOP United Kingdom, but there is a clarification that the work needs to be "if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". I'm not sure how that would apply to exhibits such as this if they aren't permently installed. There have been some discussion about wax figurines in the UK at places like before at Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures, Commons:Deletion requests/Madame Tussauds, Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures at Tussauds in which the figures were deemed to be not permanently displayed, but those are a bit old. So, I'm just curious if anything has changed over the years with respect to COM:CB#3D art (sculptures etc.) and Category:Wax figure deletion requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Image needs review of users able to understand Catalan

File:MIR GUAL 1500 5411.jpg has a renaming request, but also needs a licence review. (Side remark: This is the direct image link, but the link initiates a download by default.) Sorry, Darwin, Jmabel and Ruthven for directly pinging you, but it’s much easier to search for admins with some Catalan knowledge than for licence reviewers. Do I understand correctly (from automatic translation), that in Govern Illes Balears – Avís legal, 5th item (“Tota la informació d'aquest portal …”), there is something about a CC share-alike licence, but they do not tell us, whether commercial or not commercial? — Speravir – 03:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Errm, and while I wrote this, apparently Masum Ibn Musa did the renaming …
And hopefully now correct ping at DarwIn and Ruthven. — Speravir – 03:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Speravir: Hello! I did the license review. In the "Avís legal" page, it states that Tota la informació d'aquest portal, com també el disseny, els texts, les imatges, el so i qualsevol altre material que l'integri, és propietat intel·lectual de l'Administració de la Comunitat Autònoma de les Illes Balears, tot i que es pot utilitzar amb la llicència anomenada Creative Commons, en la modalitat Reconeixement-Compartir Igual (by-sa). Meaning that "All the information of this portal, images and texts etc. are copyright of Administració de la Comunitat Autònoma de les Illes Balears and are released under CC BY-SA licence." No mention of commercial/not commercial, just plain CC BY-SA license. The only doubt is whether we should use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} in those cases when no specific version is mentioned. --Ruthven (msg) 08:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — Speravir – 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help me with these photographs from the Bibliothèque nationale de France

I would like if possible to upload these 2 photographs from the Bibliothèque nationale de France:

Both were taken in 1927, and both are according to the BNF in the public domain (click on "i"). They can be downloaded in JPEG format by clicking on the download button.

Are these eligible for upload here?

If no, why not, as they are in the public domain?

If yes, Would somebody upload them for me, or tell me what templates I need to use? (I've already tried the wizard and get stuck on the USA section. I can't understand what rationale I am supposed to use for these being in the public domain in the USA if they have been released to the PD by the BNF in Europe.) --Kingboyk (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is Commons:URAA. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
If they were published in 1927, they should be {{PD-1996}} for the U.S. side (50 years from publication for anonymous works, plus the 8.3 year wartime extensions, still expired before 1996). This is presuming the photographer was not named, which they are not at the source here. If these were unpublished photos only published recently, they would still be under U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
After extensive reading, I do believe you are correct Carl, thank you very much. What a minefield! --Kingboyk (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Screenshots of The Geometer's Sketchpad

I created a program in the Geometer's Sketchpad, screenshot it and uploaded the screenshot to Wikimedia Commons. The Geometer's Sketchpad is a proprietary software of McGraw Hill, so I suspect that the screenshots of the software are not free and are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Is that true? If that is the case, then the file I have uploaded have to be deleted. Onmaditque (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? Ruslik (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NNDC

Can we use the images on the page of National Nucear Data Center? Specifically this chart: https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/. Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

That probably depends on whether Alejandro Sonzogni and Benjamin Shu are federal employees, and whether the software they're using to display the data isn't itself non-free. Could probably shoot them an email since they provide it. But have to keep in mind that working at a federal facility, or even having an official .gov email address doesn't necessarily mean you are a federal government employee as opposed to a contractor. GMGtalk 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I forgot to link the webpage: https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/help/index.jsp. "Users should feel free to use the information from the Chart of Nuclides (tables and plots) in their work, reports, presentations, articles and books." Is it not enough? --Regasterios (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Regasterios: Unfortunately no. Commons requires works to be public domain, or to be released under a specific free license. Generic permission for use is not sufficient. GMGtalk 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the answer. --Regasterios (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

File:European Committee of the Regions logo.svg

This file might be PD, but I think it's going to need a better license than {{PD-because}}. The file can be seen here. but I'm not sure about EU files when it comes to {{European Union Government}} or {{PD-EUGov}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

File:European Economic and Social Committee Logo (2020).svg is another example of this: same uploader and same "PD-because" license. There may be more files uploaded by this person as well which need to be checked. Both these files were uploaded as replacements to non-free files being used on English Wikipedia; they may indeed be public domain, but I think this is not the right way to try and license them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Equestrian statue of James Longstreet.jpg

There's no FoP for 3D works of art in the US per COM:FOP United States which might make this particular photo a derivwtive work. I haven't been able to find out any information about this statue itself other than what's written about it in en:Equestrian statue#Hoof-position symbolism. If this statue was installed in 1998, then it wouldn't really be old enough to be PD simply based upon its age. There may be another reason, however, but if there isn't then I don't think the file can be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

https://gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/monuments-to-individuals/james-longstreet/ It was dedicated on July 3, 1998. Sculptor is Gary Casteel. Started a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Equestrian statue of James Longstreet.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Choosing correct image license tag

I am new to Wiki, and want to upload a photo to a writer's Wiki page, taken by his friend, with the permission of both parties. (The subject has provided me with the image for this purpose.) What image license tag should I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandrous (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Meandrous: Welcome! There are a couple ways, depending on the wishes of the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer). Commons:Licensing describes the licenses we can accept on Commons (and see license descriptions at CreativeCommons: Licenses). The license must allow free reuse and derivatives for any purpose, and may require only attribution (if CC-BY) or not (e.g. CC-0). The photographer can create an account here on Commons and upload the photo with their license of choice, or post the photograph to a site like Flickr or their own website with an explicit license notice (e.g. CC-BY-4.0), in which case you or another user can transfer a copy to Commons (Freely-licensed Flickr files can be imported using UploadWizard.) Alternatively, you or the photographer could follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS, and submit evidence of permission. This is especially useful if the photograph has been previously published elsewhere, or if you will be uploading an image on behalf of the copyright holder. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Little question

This image is taken from here, where it is written that "Image available for use until 03/04/2023", but we all know that once uploaded here under a valid license the image can be used (at least, supposedly) "forever". In this case, when 2023 finally comes what are we gonna do?--SirEdimon (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We delete it now. That's not a free license, of any sort. If we can get an actual free license, that would have to be without such a restriction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a policy to delete files without Machine Readable Data?

Somehow I have not noticed that the file that I have uploaded has been deleted back in August. I was so sure that such madness couldn't happen, that after I took a little break from Commons I have simply forgotten about it. Luckily today I have decided to go through my deletion reqiests and mark them for undeletion, and came up with that. My question is this: Is there actually some sort of policy to delete a file under a free licence which does not have some sort of machine readable markings? I cannot find anything of the sort anywhere, and I do not understand how on Earth should I add these markings (and I am a reasonably tech savy individual). As such I request some help with either undeletion or making the stupid markings. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 20:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus or policy that supports that example deletion. COM:L applies, so if the FAL meets those requirements, whether you use a template or not is irrelevant. --Fæ (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This should be undeleted. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks @Fæ and Ruslik: , I'll request undeletion then. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 20:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: I've undeleted the file and fixed the various FAL templates. All that was necessary was adding the templates to Category:Primary license tags (flat list). I'm not sure why deleting the file seemed like a better idea :P Kaldari (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jcb: Do you know if any other files were deleted due to not having machine-readable licenses? Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Kaldari: I am just glad that I didn't do something stupid like retiring from Commons, or the file would have remain deleted. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The deletion was clearly the wrong thing to do. If someone wants to search discussions, I suspect there was a decision at some point that adding a CC licence alongside the FAL would be okay and sufficient. There are very few FAL files which are not in addition covered by CC, and it may well be that technically speaking it was an adequate 'interim' solution. --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Ornamentiertes Altarkruzifix DreiE Hof 20200203 002 RAW.png

Hello Wikimedians,

my question is about the copyright status of the cross of File:Ornamentiertes Altarkruzifix DreiE Hof 20200203 002 RAW.png and File:Ornamentiertes Altarkruzifix DreiE Hof 20200203 001.jpg. It stands on an altar in the Dreieinigkeitskirche Hof (Holy trinity church Hof). Another user asked if there are might be copyright issues. I am not sure how to handle it. The creator is de:Hermann Jünger, who died in 2005 (so I cannot ask for OTRS). Another person published an image of the cross in a "Festschrift" in 2011, which can be seen in the "Pfarramt". The cross itself should be created around the 1960s. Is there any possibility to be save concerning copyright?

And if not: Does Wikimedia Commons have a function, where File:Ornamentiertes Altarkruzifix DreiE Hof 20200203 002 RAW.png and File:Ornamentiertes Altarkruzifix DreiE Hof 20200203 001.jpg will get unlocked in 2076, when the "Schutzfrist" is over? Can this file be added to Category:Public Domain Day 2076 so that the files get unlocked on 01.01.2076?

Thanks and regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Are not the images covered by Freedom of Panorama in Germany? Is the cross located in a place accessible to general public? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Just add {{FoP-Germany}} to the files. --Ruthven (msg) 08:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the cross is in a church ("de:Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts"), which is free accessible for the public. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses, I'll add "FoP-Germany" to the files. So you think there shouldn't be any problems with the image? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531, Ruslik0, and Ruthven: Unfortunately here, Germany is one of the countries where Freedom of panorama is only valid for public exterior, not interior things. Cf. COM:FOP and especially COM:FOP Germany. Also, the depicted thing must be permanently installed, crucifixes are often mobile (I do not know, whether this one is). So, Panthera, both files must be deleted. You can both files add to the category Undelete in 2076 (oops, already existing) before asking for speedy deletion. BTW, if you could get contact to heirs of Hermann Jünger you could ask them for permission. — Speravir – 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Panthera, you are the photographer. There is another issue, though a very wide spread one in Commons: In the moment one get get the impression that you give the licence for the crucifix, too, but you can not, of course. The only relatively simple way I know is by using template {{Art Photo}}. I did the distinction several times manually, cf. wiki source of Wir sind das Volk - Dresdner Revolutionsweg 1989.jpg. — Speravir – 20:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I am already on it. I will take a speedy deletion and reactivate it when I have the permission. I hope that I am done about next week. Thank you all for the advices. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Flamme de la Liberté

Should this be considered as a derivative of year 1886 original or as an independent artwork of 1987? In the second case, are all those photos to be deleted per COM:FOP France? --VLu (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@VLu: It's an exact replica of the 1886 original, not an original work. --Ruthven (msg) 08:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Photograph of Archibald Leitch

Hello, I've already asked this question to en.wiki but am still waiting for an answer. I've also read on here about copyright in the UK but haven't foud a definitive answer so I'll ask here: I found this photograph of Archibald Leitch on en.wiki, which has been published in fair-use that here is rightfully forbidden. Now the question is: since he was dead in 1939 in the United Kingdom, and that photograph is likely to have been taken in the late 1910s - early 1920, is there any Brit expert of UK copyright that can help clarifying its status, and tell wheter (or not) it can be safely moved here? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It depends on whom is the author of the photo and when it was first published. Ruslik (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
According to this page, it is from 1924. I have not found the original source, though. It is likely in this book which would likely give more information, as most places with this photo credit that organization as the immediate source. If the author is unknown (seems likely, given the photo is in many places with no author mentioned), and it was made available to the public in 1924 (unsure without knowing the original source), then it would qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}} and be OK to upload (and would also be OK in the US, via PD-US-expired or PD-US-URAA). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, @Clindberg: ; of course I don't want to infringe anyone's copyright (at least consciously), thus is very relieving for me to learn it's free from copyright beyond any reasonable doubt (due to the reliability of a source like The Scotsman). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FOP issues

Can someone identify the artist for the statue in File:23 January 2020, Arak (4).jpg and the artwork in File:23 January 2020, Arak (14).jpg? Can't LR them due to FOP issues. Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 09:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion

I got a message 2 images I recently uploaded deleted. I took these images, I'm the owner and I want them to be on wiki. how do I undo the deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.bendavid (talk • contribs) 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You should follow the instructions on Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

File:3581987 331fca96.jpg

Low quality version of Geograph image without proper attribution.

Should image be deleted and geograph image be uploaded using geograph tools, or should image be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublah (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You should update it with a higher resolution version. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright on Wikidata stats

Someone uploaded this file File:Screenshot of the Wikidata Site Stats dashboard as of 2019-09-23 at 00.01.45 EDT.png. It seems to be a screenshot from https://grafana.wikimedia.org but I can se no copyright info on that site. Anyone know what the copyright status is on that site? --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I highly doubt anything in that image is copyrighatable, regardless of the license. Lines, colors, simple text and common data are not eligible for copyright. I don't know where {{Cc-by-2.0}} came from, but {{PD-ineligible}} might be more applicable. --Animalparty (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Open Access Journal (CC-BY) Vs (CC-BY-SA)

Apologies if this is not the place for this question.

I would like to upload multiple Images of reptiles taken by me with the CC-BY-SA license.


However, doing some research on the licenses available, I found the below article,

https://oaspa.org/why-cc-by/

In which the author shares the following interpretation, about the use of Share-Alike material in an Open Access Journal;

"material distributed within a Share-Alike article could only be combined and redistributed with other share-alike content. In contrast, CC-BY content can be combined with any content, and redistributed according to the terms of that other content, as long as CC-BY’s own attribution requirement is respected."



On the other hand; In the comments section, someone mentions;


"It is possible to split licences in a single publication so that the CC-BY-SA material could be marked as such within work that is otherwise CC BY, if the publisher will allow that. We would certainly recommend asking the publisher. See https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Marking/Creators/Marking_third_party_content "



As I would like my Images and material to be used in Open Access Scientific Journals, Not-For Profit Organisations, Or International and Local Governmental Organisational Reports,


Will the CC-BY-SA license be compatible to such cases?

Or,

Do I need to provide a Exception in the comments section for scientific purposes?

Wallacegromit1 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a court case ruling that an for-profit, mostly not free-content atlas that used a photo under the CC-BY-SA on the front, with proper credit, was okay, and the Creative Commons agreed with them. Based on that, I have come to the conclusion that the CC-BY-SA prevents reuse of photos of photos by anyone minimally; it would only have serious impact should the photo itself be made a derivative in a way that the deriver wanted to keep proprietary. (I believe using it as a backdrop in a non-freely licensed movie could be a problem, for instance.) CC-BY works can use them without problem, provided they follow the same rules as everyone else; i.e. being clear about the photo and any modifications being CC-BY-SA and giving attribution. The publisher may not accept the photos because of the CC-BY-SA, but I can't see the proposed exception mattering to the publisher in that case.
Since, as I said, the CC-BY-SA puts minimal limits on commercial organizations reusing your photos for profit, if that is a big concern, you may not want to upload here. If you really want open access journals to not worry about using them, you can upload under CC-BY. Or you can upload under the CC-BY-SA, knowing that will discourage some use by various parties, commercial, not-for-profit, and open access, but that is more their decision than a legal requirement. It's up to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply. Always had a doubt about the reuse, will think of the license accordingly. -Wallacegromit1 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Wallacegromit1 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not-PD-US-URAA and post-upload tagging

I have determined that File:1927-Kodak-El Porvenir-10-31.jpg fell into the public domain in Spain in 1998 and thus had its copyright in the US restored until 2023. The file was uploaded on October 23, 2019 as {{PD-art|PD-old-90-expired}}. If I tagged it as {{PD-Art|PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, would that be acceptable or should we just delete the image until 2023? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is really affected by URAA then the last option. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I saw somewhere that it has been accepted that we host images covered by URAA until we get a take down notice. --MGA73 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I added the tags and deletion request anyway. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: No, that decision (from years ago) was overturned within days, but some admins still follow it (understandable to be frustrated by the URAA, but it's still the law, and U.S. law is part of our policy). These are the frustrating ones though, as there is little realistic chance anyone would care. For what it's worth, I'm guessing the Spanish copyright did not run out until 2008 -- pretty sure that corporate anonymous works had an 80 year from publication term as part of the transition in their 1987 law and that would not have been shortened by the EU directive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thank you! I have been away from Commons for some time and I found a recent discussion in the archive where they discuss that. I don’t think that it was clear that “the rebel decision“ was overturned. So the status seems to be to delete images known to be covered by URAA but not many users actively try to find those images and therefore Commons still host a lot of those images. —MGA73 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Triggerhappy deletionist should export those files to the wikis, where they are used and perfectly legal, not just destroying the picture completely. Deletion without export should be considered vandalism. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: Problem is, the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow local uploads, forcing them to use Commons files. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

NPG photo of Walter Walsh (1857-1931)?

Having read through w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, I'm not 100% sure about their photo of Walter Walsh. OK to add to Commons or not? Muzilon (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. Presuming it was published in 1928, it would be PD-UK-unknown today, but would have also been restored by the URAA and would not expire in the U.S. until 2024. However, I'm not sure we know that it was published. It sounds like it was part of the trove of negatives in this story, where the negative archives of the Lafayette photographic studio were discovered in 1968 in an attic which was getting cleaned out, kept private still, then donated to the NPG in 1989. That leaves open the possibility that it was left unpublished all that time. If that is true, and it was legally first made available to the public in 1989, it will be under UK copyright until 2060. The U.S. copyright in that case would last until 2049 (120 years after creation, and never having lost U.S. copyright there is no URAA involved). If publication by the NPG waited until later, say after 2002, or if the found negatives don't count as being legally published by the copyright owner (i.e. the NPG doesn't legally own the copyright), then it would indeed be PD in the UK, but U.S. copyright would last until that 2049 date. Photographs from that collection from before 1926 would be an entirely different matter though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: Oh well. Can we go with "Fair Use" on Wikipedia, or does the NPG complain about that too? Muzilon (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Flickr user Ninian Reid

Yesterday it came to my attention that File:Bushfire smoke in Victoria, Australia.jpg was uploaded by a new user who uploaded the photograph in good faith from Flickr. Had it not been for that upload, I wouldn't have looked at other images people have uploaded from Ninian Reid's stream.

I have concerns that some of the uploads on Commons are images that are not the Flickr user's own work, looking at the uploads on Flickr (UK based), some photographs are their own but others are clearly not (example).

Clear copyright violations

US Gov work (Flickr uploader license laundering)

Files containing EXIF data with "Screenshot" in User comments.

Questionable

I sadly think the Flickr user should be added to thew blacklist. Bidgee (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Elliott & Fry photo 1912

Photo of w:Walter Walsh (writer) published in a 1912 book (British imprint). Photo credited to w:Elliott & Fry studios. {{PD-US-expired}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}}, both, or neither? Muzilon (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Both, looks like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:The Other Guys premiere

I recently found images at Category:The Other Guys premiere, which seems to be fake police cars being placed like a statue. As there are no FOP for American artistic works, I wonder if that work exceeds TOO, and whether if they constitute as artistic works? Thank you for assistance.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There is FOP in London, so that applies here. It's nowhre near the USA. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I thought that the entire stuff is in the USA...廣九直通車 (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Are the depicted artistic works of a permanent nature? The information in {{FoP-UK}} seems to indicate that "works of artistic craftsmanship" must be "permanently located", among other things. --Gazebo (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gazebo: As these are located in a busy part of London, I doubt that they are a permanent feature. However, "It is not clear that any degree of permanence is required where works are displayed in premises which are 'open to the public.' Experts are divided on the point."[2] From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Magazine cover ineligible for copyright?

File:500greatestalbumsofalltime.JPG

Looking for a second opinion on this magazine cover - is it simple enough to be ineligible for copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion it is. Let's say I would ask a random person on the street to design a cover for an issue about 500 best albums. Many of them would come up with the title "500 greatest albums of all time" it is a very common theme "greatest of all time". So the text is definitely PD. Now the design. Making 500 larger than the rest of the text is also a common sceme, if it were 50, then the numbers would be still bigger. Font selection is not complex, this is in no way caligraphy, simply select a font that fits, and you are done. There is no picture as the background, and the colour is not something that can be copyrighted as the back of the magazine cover. Having a border around your magazine cover and having a little thing in the corner saying what is inside is used by everybody, and thus is not copyrighted either. The only thing that comes close is the trademark of Rolling Stone. Here I am not completely sure, but I think that it is reasonable to believe that it is only protected by trademark. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • At some point, if you combine enough uncopyrightable elements, they become mysteriously copyrightable. E.g., individual words are not copyrightable but a long enough series of them is. I assume that this cover would be copyrightable in Australia, given the precedent of the Aboriginal flag, but I don't know about the USA. --ghouston (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Australia law is a bit bonkers, and I think the flag is a case where case law makes bad law; i.e. the judges wanted the Aboriginal flag to be protected, so they said it was copyrighted, when it should have been trademarked or had sui generis protection. But yes, I tend to think that as a whole, the cover is copyrightable. It's quite thin, but probably over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Tough call. I don't think any of the elements are eligible for U.S. copyright. The question then is if the "selection and arrangement" is. The arrangement is pretty simplistic, stacked vertically on top of each other. Not sure the magazine title portion would be included, since it's the same in all their magazines. The rest... question is if the color/font choices amount to enough, combined with the separator element in there. Typographical arrangement is not supposed to be copyrightable, but there was a case where a competitor basically copying the Reader's Digest cover layout was ruled copyright infringement (as well as a trademark problem) -- but that involved more specialized placement and 3-4 font choices along with their sizes, which is a bit more than this. I may go under the line... type of thing where the U.S. Copyright Office would probably say no, but a court result would be less predictable. I probably wouldn't upload it myself, but I don't think it's worth a DR either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    I can go with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm going to play devil's advocate and say, yes, it probably is copyrightable. The text is not simply a rendered font, but stylized with borders and shadows. Combine that with the overall arrangement and I think it might pass the threshold of originality, but just barely. Kaldari (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • IMHO is far below the threshold of originality. It's a cover that even I could have done, and I am the farthest from a graphic designer :-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 00:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I think that's a clearly bad standard. I'd say a graphic designer trying to do a competent job may be even less likely to produce copyrightable work than someone who is the farthest from a graphic designer, by simply working without major creativity within well-known lines. Toddlers are pretty good at making copyrightable work, even if the value of that copyright is pretty minimal, because they're not following those rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes @Prosfilaes: , I understand your point, but the ground of my argument is that I would rather use simpler elements than a graphic designer - yes for the rest I concede that lots of logos and pictograms, even successful, aren't original enough, or are not original at all, see Adidas, Microsoft, Nike, Juventus, and so on, but placing a shadow and a border around a text is a thing that even I woould have thought ;-) -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think there are enough design choices here (the banner in the upper right-hand corner, the lines next to the word "THE", and the text effects that I cannot tell for myself whether it should be PD-ineligible, but I'd rather invoke the precautionary principle here. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible photo of Mike Royer

I recently took some photos of Mike Royer at a convention in the US that was open to the public. I am considering uploading a cropped version of one of the photos that I took, assuming that there are no copyright issues. A low-resolution version of the photo that I am considering is temporarily available for download here. Regarding the contents of the photo, the only possible copyright concern that comes to mind is the background texture-in the photo, Mr. Royer is standing against a column or pillar that was in an atrium area at the hotel where the convention was held. The column or pillar had a textured surface, from what I remember. The question I have is whether it would be all right on copyright grounds to upload a high-resolution version of the photo to Commons. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any copyright problem here. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo as File:Mike-Royer-in-2020.jpg. --Gazebo (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue with File:The Tale of Little Pig Robinson.jpg

The image File:The Tale of Little Pig Robinson.jpg has a date of 1930. As such, it is not clear that the work is out of copyright in the US. (According to the English Wikipedia, The Tale of Little Pig Robinson was published in September 1930.) The information in Commons:Problematic sources#Examples indicates that the country of origin for Beatrix Potter's illustrations is the United Kingdom. Assuming that the country of origin for the book cover is the UK, then there is the question as to whether the cover was under copyright in the UK on the URAA date for the UK (most likely January 1, 1996.) The information at Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights#Preliminary_tests indicates that the URAA does not apply to non-US works that were published in the work's country of origin and in the US simultaneously. (Peter Hirtle's US copyright chart mentions the situation where a work was first published outside the US from 1925 through 1977 with the work also being published in the US within 30 days. For such works, the chart indicates that the work should be treated as a work that was registered for copyright or first published in the US.)

If the book cover is not subject to the URAA, then there might be the question of whether the work was published in compliance with US formalities. (With regard to US copyright, a question that comes to mind is whether it matters if a work was registered with the US Copyright Office in a given year and then distributed to the public during a subsequent year; in such a circumstance, would the year of publication be the year that the work was distributed to the public?) --Gazebo (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

URAA is irrelevant; it was filed and renewed, renewal ID R206616; see the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database. It is in copyright for another six years in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into the issue. If the book (including the cover) was published in compliance with US formalities (which may have required a valid copyright notice in addition to renewal), then the work is almost certainly copyrighted in the US.
Another possible issue is whether the work is copyrighted in the UK. The information at Commons:Problematic sources#Examples indicates that works authored by Beatrix Potter entered the public domain in the UK at the start of 2014. I am not familiar with UK copyright, but a possible issue that comes to mind is whether the book cover has multiple persons or parties as "authors". On the other hand, if the only "author" of the book cover was Beatrix Potter, then the entire book cover may be out of copyright in the UK. --Gazebo (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I can not upload a picture

I can´t upload a fucking picture..... can someone help me, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flor Castro Muñoz (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flor Castro Muñoz. What kind of picture are you trying to upload? Is it something which is allowed per Commons:Licensing, i.e. something allowed per this? Have you tried using Commons:Upload Wizard? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The image meets all the requirements requested by Commons: License. And the loading assistant didn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flor Castro Muñoz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC) [Note: The preceding comment was originally posted at User talk:Marchjuly#Hi Marchjuly, but I'm moving it here to keep all relevant discussion in the same place. -- 21:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)]

Establishing public domain status?

I suspect that many of the early issues of Physique Pictorial are in the public domain because the publications I have encountered are lacking a copyright notice of any kind which was required of published work in the US prior to 1978.[3] Similar reasoning for Charade being in the public domain. I'm the original uploader of two issues on archive.org (slightly NSFW) [4][5] and would like to include the high-resolution scans here but wanted to check first. Please take a look and tell me if you think they are in the public domain. I'm also working on a stand-alone Wikipedia page for Physique Pictorial, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verumregium (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked through the first one; a pre-1964 work would have needed a renewal too, and I don't see any evidence of Physique Pictorial being renewed. I don't see any reason why it would be copyrighted, and the same probably holds for the second one. Please upload the PDF as well, so we can process the work as a whole on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
And you may already be aware, but there are tools to quickly and conveniently transfer scanned Internet Archive books to Commons, e.g. IA Upload (and it's a good idea to review Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats). --Animalparty (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That says "Files that might realistically be useful to one or more other Wikimedia projects, e.g. Wikisource or Wikibooks, should be kept"; and published magazines like this are certainly useful to Wikisource (I say, wearing my hat as an administrator on the English Wikisource).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I was able to upload both with the IA Uploader but I noticed the individual image files were slightly compressed (e.g. from 3153 x 4966 to 953 x 1,500). I'm assuming this is because Wikimedia Commons limits upload size to 100mb? All the original high-quality 600dpi scans are 430mb. Verumregium (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
DJVu/PDFs are good for text, but rather suboptimal for images, which should be uploaded separately and individually in high quality format to maximize their re-usability. See more at File types: Textual formats. --Animalparty (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

CCTV and video registrator footage

I remember reading somewhere that Commons does not consider automatically recorded footage to be covered by the copyright laws, since such recordings lack expression. The reason why I am searching for this now is that a file that I have uploaded has failed the automated licence review process, and is likely to fail the manual one as well. But I believe that this footage may in fact be free of copyright, as there was no element of expression in here, the camera was simply pointing forward and recording all the time, the driver didn't even more it to cover the events after the collision. I would argue that public domain applies, but I am unsure how to mark that in the appropriate way via templates. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know WMF's policy on this but there would be more to consider than just copyright. For example, last year in the UK two people were prosecuted for viewing and sharing video of an autopsy. It was footage from a security camera, so no artistic creation rights but it did breech privacy law. I doubt the same issue would apply in a public place but this example shows that you have more than copyright to consider if the footage is to be legally compliant in both the source country and the USA. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I managed to stumble across {{PD-RU-trivial-securitycam}}. I can't comment on its validity though. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have never seen a copyright summary for 'automatic' CCTV footage. In the absence of a legal clarification or case law, My expectation would be that anyone who sets up the camera or possibly activates the recording, may have rights over the footage so we would always need a verifiable copyright release. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
See w:Threshold_of_originality#Originality_in_specific_types_of_works. Apparently this is clearly PD in Russia. It's been claimed to be PD in the US, but the case never reached final trial. The UK case ruled that it was copyrighted. In the US, I'd argue that there's no creativity here; it's purely mechanical choices. But were I a lawyer, were my client to need it, I would argue that the camera installer has to choose a optimal filming angle, just like a camera operator, for much the same reasons (seeing the action), and the fact it's one long stable shot doesn't change that. I like my argument against copyright in the US, and given that it is PD in Russia, I might lean towards keeping it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Australian military PD?

Hi. I've stumbled across File:Egypt scenes 1917 - 12732710563.jpg, which has an auto licence tag from Flikr. It was produced by a member of the Australian military in 1917 and placed in a photo album. I can't see any indication of publication prior to it being donated to a museum. As a photo taken by an Australian prior to 1955, I think it would fall under {{PD-Australia}} (template option B). However, with an uncertain publication date, how would the US copyright be covered?
Please note that the Museum is claiming a licence term that prevents commercial reuse. If it can't be established as PD to bypass the museum licence, I assume that deletion is appropriate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in the public domain in Australia. Sadly institutions try to claim copyright on digitised photographs which are in the public domain and has been something the Wikipedians have been trying to address. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
They've marked it as "no known copyright", so I'd see it just as a request by the museum. In the US, we'd need a publication date. Do we have any reason to think they were published in any way before 2002? I'm not sure they were ever legally published (by US standards) with permission of copyright holder, especially since they seem to be released as PD-Australia by the museum. In that case, in the US they're life+70, with an option of assuming 120 years since creation if we can't find anything after checking.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Reasons 3 and 4 of the "No known copyright" tag is a license, basically. The only issue I can see would be if the institution does not own copyright, and are just relying on Australia's copyright term being over to post those images, which is a possibility -- in which case the copyright may still exist in other countries. The main question is if copyright was transferred when the items were donated (a distinct possibility). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The photo is PD in Australia, like any photo taken before 1955. I'm not sure if its source country is really Australia for Commons purposes, though. It's obviously taken in Egypt and part of "an album compiled by Sub. Lieutenant H.B. Buck during his service in WWI" and somehow the album ended up at an Australian museum. H.B Buck wasn't necessarily Australian: I can't find any reference to him. Not to mention that Australian citizenship didn't even exist in WWI. --ghouston (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it says at [6] that he was a member of en:East Indies and Egyptian Seaplane Squadron and the en:Royal Naval Reserve. --ghouston (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Possibly Royal Australian Navy Reserve, but he is elusive. --ghouston (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This may not be important. Is the source country Egypt, being the country where the photographs were created, or Australia, where they've been published (by a 3rd party after falling into the public domain in that country)? --ghouston (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a can of worms in itself. As the photo was created in 1917, the territory was the en:Sultanate of Egypt (2 successful revolutions ago). While it is the same physical location, the core constitution and supporting legal system are very different. I have no idea what effect that has on copyright law. It probably has to be considered in the context of the individual country. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I did some digging. Under modern copyright law, it is the nationality of the creator that is key, not the location where the image is taken.[7] There may be additional local laws that the image has to comply with (for example, taking a photo of a military base in Greece would land you in trouble) but once created, the copyright is tied to the author's home country.
Now we need to track down where the author of this image was from. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This page says he lived in Largs Bay, South Australia, but does not give life dates. Country of origin is the country of first publication, not where it was taken -- the Egypt stuff is meaningless. So he was Australian, had the photos in a private album, then they were donated (possibly by heirs) to an Australian museum. First published in Australia seems completely reasonable, and they are PD there, and were PD there in 1996 (indeed PD there by the time they were donated, most likely). The only possible reason there is a problem is if they were technically unpublished and so never lost the U.S. copyright, and the copyright was *not* transferred to the museum (making the license in reasons 3 and 4 of the tag inoperative), and the heirs sue in other countries. That is not a significant doubt to me, nor even close, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to think they were published. Was the copyright transferred to the museum? Maybe, maybe not. Stuff like this, it's easy for copyright to get separated from negatives. I think there's some serious concern that they aren't public domain in the US (and other life+70 nations that don't have the rule of the shorter term with respect to Australia.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I doubt they were published before being donated to the museum, but since then? Even the act of donation may constitute publication by (old) U.S. rules. Many donations do come with transfer of copyright, though it's possible that copyright had expired by then making it moot in Australia. There is some gray area, sure, but it seems a bit ridiculous to delete over a question of copyright not transferring because it had already expired in another country, on the basis that the original copyright owners would care (after giving up control of the artifact itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There may be a typo in the name -- there is a Bertie Henry Buck who served in the Royal Navy Reserve, see here (lots of other details match, including being a sub lieutenant serving on seaplanes in the eastern mediterranean). So I think it is "B H Buck" not "H B Buck" (or maybe he preferred the name Henry so "H B" is how the family referred to him). Bertie Henry Buck lived from 1888.05.22 to 1952.08.01. His mother died in Largs Bay in the 1930s apparently, and he died in Port Lincoln, South Australia, per some genealogical results in a Google search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, and some more information from old newpaper articles: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and especially [13] which covers WWI. He may have also taken these photos: [14]. --ghouston (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Barito Putera Logo 2011.jpg

This might be {{PD-logo}} per COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure about COM:Indonesia. Is this file OK as licensed? If this file is OK as licensed, then en:File:Barito Putera logo.svg uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content may also be OK to covert to "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it is below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Golden Memories Of Radio

Are any of the tracks on this recording out of copyright (or nearly so)? Some are 1920s, one is "President Truman Announces Hiroshima "A" Bomb Attack", etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

US audio recordings are under copyright at least until 2022. It is new law, The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, and https://www.copyright.gov/music-modernization/faq.html gives the term limits as
The federal remedies for unauthorized use of pre-1972 sound recordings shall be available for 95 years after the year of first publication of the recording, subject to certain additional periods. These periods provide varying additional protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, based on when the sound recording was first published:
For recordings first published before 1923, the additional time period ends on December 31, 2021.
For recordings first published between 1923-1946, the additional time period is 5 years after the general 95-year term.
For recordings first published between 1947-1956, the additional time period is 15 years after the general 95-year term.
For all remaining recordings first fixed prior to February 15, 1972, the additional transition period shall end on February 15, 2067.
I don't know if we have that listed on site yet. I don't think this interferes with PD-USGov, so if the recording (not just the speaker) is PD-USGov, it should be out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes that any sound recordings that are PD-USGov would be allowed here. The other sound recordings would have to wait until their copyrights expire per the Music Modernization Act. Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ansel Adams photos / Are they in public domain in Europe as well?

Hello, found some articles about Ansel Adams's works given away to public domain by the National Archives and Records Administration. Does anyone know if they are also in public domain in Europe? I work in an online-gallery in Poland and wonder if we could sell reprints of this photographs? Not sure if it was given for public domain only in USA or in other countries too. Usually - according to European law - works of artists become part of public domain 70 years after death of the artist. But this case seems different as his works were given away by National Archives and Records Administration as I mentioned before.

Would be very grateful for some help / opinions.

Here is the link to his works in public domain:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2011_Ansel_Adams_donation_from_U.S._National_Archives

best, Michal. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.146.102.167 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It was released as public domain, because it was done as part of the work of a US federal employee, and the US government doesn't claim copyright over its works. In 1976, during the writing of the new copyright law, a report said
The prohibition on copyright protection for United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for the use of its works abroad.
I know of no case where this has been tested, and I know at the time, the Soviet Union gave the opinion that the UCC did not obligate them, and they would not, recognize such copyright claims. Ultimately, this is a board for Wikimedia Commons; if you have a question relating to your business interests, you should probably ask a lawyer locally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

FOP vs. Hofer Geschichtswege

Hello dear Wikimedians,

to avoid Copyright issues, I wanna ask if the info boards, that are available in the public (stand near historical buildings), are free because of Freedom of Panorama. In particular, the boards show an information text (e.g. info about church St. Michaelis) and an image.

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In Germany texts are ok, according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama. Ruslik (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, even if the info boards contain images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
2D artworks are okay as well. Ruslik (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Image from old Nepalese folded book: free for Commons or Wikipedia?

Hi there, the past months I've been writing a Wikipedia article Dhunge_Dhara. For this I uploaded an illustration from a book about the subject: File:Hiti filter.png. This drawing is originally from a page of and old Nepalese book (thyasaphu. See here: Category:Books from Nepal in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art for other examples), probably late 18th or 19th century. Is such a drawing ok for Commons or must it be seen as a derivative work, with it's own copyright? If it's not allowed, can the drawing be used for Wikipedia alone? --Judithcomm (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is ok. See {{Pd-art}} Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Judithcomm (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably? Nepal is a life+50 nation, so early 20th century is starting to get into the PD-assumed range, and 1920 past the normal PD-assumed range for life+50 nations (though any consensus for life+50 PD-assumed is a fuzzy). It'd be best if we had the illustrator's name and death date, but pinning it down to certainly pre-20th century would work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Of all the old Nepali book pages I looked at, 'late 19th century' is the most recent date given. Most are much older than that.--Judithcomm (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay. That should be good enough to be PD in Nepal and the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Even better: I found a powerpoint presentation by an expert that dates the drawing as older than 1779 AD. --Judithcomm (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it permissible to upload photos that are my own work, but have been altered or enhanced by a third party website?

I do a lot of astrophotography, and then submit the photos to nova.astrometry.com to apply constellation diagrams and labels for the brighter stars. Is it OK to upload such photos that have been altered by third party sources?

If they're allowed, what copyright setting would be appropriate? Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Pithecanthropus4152. Please make sure that the third-parties would allow un-restricted commercialization and modifications of their own derivatives of your works under one of acceptable licenses (see COM:L). Otherwise, please upload just your originals original versions of your works instead especially if you're willing to allow un-restricted commercial and derivative uses. If yo're too cautious about allowing freer modifications, then you may want to upload your work under either {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}, {{CC-BY-SA-1.0}}, {{FAL}} or any other practical and acceptable license that requires users to use the license itself especially for modifications, or don't upload your work at all. (Alternatively, you can upload your works locally at English Wikipedia.) If you would like to enforce copyright on your works derived by third-parties, then you may want to email one of OTRS volunteers (see COM:OTRS). Anyone else can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about or missing something. George Ho (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC); edited, 03:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload a photo published in 1927?

I would like to upload a photo that was published in 1927. My (possibly flawed?) understanding is that it is in the public domain in Canada (where I live), but the US public domain tag requires publication before 1925. Is there a tag I can use to put it on Wikimedia Commons? Thank you, Erna709 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The first question is whether you know who the creator was and when they died. Depending on that answer it may still be in copyright or there may be a reason why it is already PD in the US. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
All Canadian photographs published before 1949 (except those covered by Crown Copyright) are public domain in Canada. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada All Canadian photographs published before 1946 are public domain in the US as Canada's URAA date was January 1, 1996. {{PD-1996}} would cover it. Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this a Canadian photograph? Given the close relationship between the two countries, many Canadian photographs were first published in the US, or near enough for US purposes, which brings in a whole pile of complexity. More information is needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for your help. The photo was first published in Who's Who In and From Newfoundland 1927. The entire book has been digitized by a local archive and you can see the page containing the photo I'm interested in here: http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/ref/collection/cns_tools/id/181439 I will use {{PD-1996}} as Abzeronow kindly suggested. Thanks again for the speedy help. Erna709 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
FYI Canada and the US have a reciprocal agreement, so URAA doesn't apply. w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Relevant copyright relations concluded after 1923. Apparently no one on here has read the text of the agreement yet. You would have to read the text of the agreement in order to know its status in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"Canada and the US have a reciprocal agreement, so URAA doesn't apply." I have no idea where that's coming from. Canada, Mexico and the US signed a trilateral agreement that restored copyright in Mexican and Canadian movies in 1994 (NAFTA), so the URAA wasn't that surprising, and the US copyright office says
"At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries."[15]
That's an "or" statement, and Canada would qualify under all three terms. I see no evidence for the claim that the URAA doesn't apply to Canada.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed -- there is nothing in those other agreements which prevents the URAA from operating per normal. There have been court cases on Canadian works involving the URAA. (In one case, restoration was disallowed because it was published simultaneously in the U.S., but only for that reason.) The old bilateral agreement would not count for much today (both countries were members of the UCC as well). In this case though it would seem to have expired before 1996 in Canada, so the URAA wouldn't apply for that reason. I'm not sure I see an author listed -- just editor and publisher. If it counts as anonymous, then Canadian copyright would have expired 50 years after publication, and if it's based on the life of the editor then it expired in 1991, per below. So, the only way U.S. copyright would still exist is if it was renewed in the U.S., and it sounds like it was not. That would make it PD-Canada and PD-1996 for the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
According to w:Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, 43 Stat. 1932 is the relevant proclamation. If we go by the four-point test for restored copyrights and the three-point test for subsisting copyrights, this photo is only protected in the US if it was published with a copyright notice (which the scan Erna709 provided does bear) or registered with the copyright office and copyright was renewed on time (1954 or 1955, assuming a publication/registration date of 1927). If a search for renewal of Who's Who In and From Newfoundland 1927 turns up negative, it's safe to say it's public domain in the US. clpo13(talk) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Canada joined the WTO on 1 January 1995. Also, the publisher who published the book died in 1940. Canadian copyright of the book must have expired in 1991, at least 50 years after lifetime per law. Unsure about the photos themselves; no photographer was attributed for the photos. George Ho (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
A quick search for renewals shows no evidence of renewals on this work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't manually find the publisher's name either, even without using search tools. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for the thought, time, and effort you have put into answering my question. It is greatly appreciated. Erna709 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright of a bathymetric map that is part of a publication

This webpage says that the publication is licenced as CC-BY 3.0. Do people think this also applies to the last two bathymetric maps in the PDF? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I would assume the entirety of the PDF is free. If the figures were non-free or licensed differently, I would expect that to be mentioned. clpo13(talk) 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
OK then, uploaded them as File:Charles Darwin volcanic field.png, File:Sodade Seamount.png and File:Pillow lavas, Sodade Seamount.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Bicycle headbadges

Hi there!

I have a museum in a mail on OTRS that wants to release the images of about 850 bicycle headbadges. Very interesting of course, but how about the copyright?

Is my assumption right that we should consider them as logo's, and therefore each individual headbadge needs to be weighed, if there are copyrightable? We have a category full of them, but they all have different licenses. Ciell (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If employees of the museum took all of the photos, the OTRS mail takes care of the photo copyrights. But you are correct that the copyrights of the badges themselves need to be considered case-by-case, as the museum has no authority over those copyrights. It has no bearing on the copyright that they are logos; this applies equally to any form of art or illustration. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Ciell (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Using PD symbol in Profitable work?

This is regarding File:Symbol move vote.svg and File:Parental Advisory label.svg. I wish to use these images as a component of a derivative profitable work (as cover art for a song, profitable means I might make money off it). Am I okay with using these images in my DW? If not, are there other vote symbols I may use? Thanks in advance. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You are. By definition (at COM:L) Commons can only host works that you can sell for profit without the need for permission. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ToxiBoi: While Jo-Jo Eumerus is correct from the perspective of copyright, the second file, File:Parental Advisory label.svg, is tagged as a trademark. Make sure you read up on the implications of reusing trademarks before you try to incorporate it into a derivative work. I am not a legal expert but misuse of a trademark can result in you being sued by the owner of the trademark. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Verwaistes Bahnhofgebäude Hof 20200223 001.jpg

Hello dear Wikimedians,

to avoid theoretical copyright issues, I want to ask if the image File:Verwaistes Bahnhofgebäude Hof 20200223 001.jpg is okay at Commons. In this case, this image shows an abandoned roundhouse in Germany, that is obviously not in use anymore. You can enter this place without restrictions like fences or borders. A complete wall of the building is missing, so you can see the interieur from the outside.


Thank you very much and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

IMO, copyright won't be a problem, as the image shows nothing copyrightable at all. Other theoretical restrictions, such as property rights, we tend to ignore, if there is no ethical problem (not the case here). --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png added as own work by an editor

User:Davidguam has uploaded this stating that this is their own work. I did ask about any relationship with Missinne on the editor's en.wiki talk page but although they are still editing they haven't replied. Doug Weller (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The key question here is whether that is an original Leonardo da Vinci work (which would be PD), a new work by another artist inspired by da Vinci (which could be copyrighted) or a derivative work of either (the derivative elements could be subject to copyright). If it is entirely PD then {{PD-Scan}} would apply and the photographer's permission isn't needed. If it is a new work or derivative and is still in copyright then permission from the new or derivative artist is required. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Point taken. But the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own owrk? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC) @From Hill To Shore: repinging. Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Except for one court in Germany one time that had a moment of brief insanity, scans are normally considered "slavish copies" that do not entail sufficient creativity to be protected under copyright. In other words, you could take a zombie, robot, or particularly well-trained cat and get pretty much the same result, so the "contribution" of the person doing the scanning is irrelevant to the end result. GMGtalk 14:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I had no idea. How about File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? In any event, I've taken the editor to en.wiki's Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Doug Weller (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Yes, I happened to see that pop up. COI is less of an issue for Commons. We actually do want and encourage connected subjects to freely license their work and make it publicly available. Having said that, pretty much any photograph is considered sufficiently creative so long as it is representing three dimensional objects. (The pure scan of the map isn't so much a three dimensional work, but a two dimensional work wrapped around a ball.) I have nominated the photograph for a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg. GMGtalk 14:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Thanks. I know COI isn't an issue here, but it's relevant on en.wiki as you know. It will be interesting to see the result of the deletion discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Scans of Indian state law

Do scans of Indian state law (such as Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act, MaMaharashtra) qualifies Template:EdictGov-India? I recently want to import some Indian state law into English Wikisource, and I know the template apples to federal law, but what about state laws? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It should qualify, but I can't really speak to Indian law. You can upload it directly to the English Wikisource if necessary, as it does qualify as {{PD-EdictGov}}, and en.WS isn't concerned about copyright in source country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, probably using the shorter and confirmed CAA to start as an exercise.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair use

Hello !

Do copyrighted official portraits of officers can be used under fair use ? The French Ministry of Defense provides a download link to the public for the portraits of all the important officers (as seen there [16]), however the photographer retains the rights on it.

Thanks in advance, CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, didn't pay attention that English Wiki allows some fair use but not Commons. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 12:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Which tag do I need to use?

For this picture[17]-[18] Thanks in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Unfortunately you can't upload that here. Commons can't accept NC (non-commercial) licences. You'll need to find someone else who has released a picture of that object under a suitable licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: Ahh, I see, damn! Thank you for your time! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Anything related from the Floraverse series

For the web-comic series “Floraverse”, and also “Forbidden Flora” (NSFW)

Several years ago, despite the main team authors with Melanie Herring (aka GlitchedPuppet or glip, then PurpleKecleon, PapayaKitty or PK), Alexander Munroe (aka Eevee, LexyEevee or Veekun) and two others had caused some controversial reasons, and then the community might likely declined nowadays.

Now let's ask a question about licensing of the series. Is it permitted to upload here under the libre/free CC licence according to about (introduction for new readers) and FAQ page (maybe outdated)?

HarvettFox96 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC), edited on 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody? Well, I'm pinging @Animalparty to respond something.
HarvettFox96 (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
With my standard disclaimer that I am not qualified to give legal advice, the licensing statement is a bit unclear. While the About page says "Everything on the site and submitted to the group is part of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License", I'm not sure if this blanket statement can legally (or enforceably) apply to other people's works on other formats (Tumblr, Deviantart, Twitter, etc.) just because someone somewhere said it's all CC-BY. Clicking on a few comics, the author is not always apparent, making the required attribution difficult. Ideally a license should be on every image, indicating the actual author is releasing it under a free license. But questions of licensing aside, even if was all public domain, it's worth asking whether the comics would be acceptable under COM:SCOPE. One or two to illustrate an article on the comics is different than using Commons to advertise/amplify/freely host a webcomic. --Animalparty (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Didn't know that she'd just closed/deactivated her user accounts away from some (centralized) social networking websites except Twitter and YouTube since almost 1-2 years, and yet some of her (deleted) works mainly irrevocable.
HarvettFox96 (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC), edited on 04:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I've uploaded a couple images of the series logo, and a promotional artwork while licence reviews are pending, if anyone will get them passed or not.
HarvettFox96 (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC), edited on 04:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Could you please verify them now?
HarvettFox96 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@HarvettFox96: I reviewed them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This means the series is now under dispute, plus I made my OTRS permission ticket (2020022010008556) from sending a proper message via e-mail directly (sorry about that I didn't place a second URL in the reference section) so anyone will proceed to restore them.
HarvettFox96 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC), edited on 00:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Railway pictures by User:LOZNRPICS

After inspecting the files uploaded by User:LOZNRPICS, it is found that these files coming from Network Rail's Twitter stream, is only said to be "licensed" under a "free license" here (Network Rail could help by uploading such pics to @WikiCommons (or Flickr) under #OpenLicence, so we can use them on Wikipedia, from the requester) (without specifying what kind of "free license" it is), and I nominated these files for deletion. User:Pigsonthewing, however, disagrees with my view, and said that the "free license" is sufficient for licensing. Could anyone more experienced give your advice? Thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have pointed out already on the deletion proposal page, the claim "only said to be 'licensed' under a 'free license'" is false. My argument has never been "that the 'free license' is sufficient for licensing" and I would ask you not to attempt to speak for me, when you are so clearly incapable of doing so. 194.66.32.17 09:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
What I have seen from the related Twitter page is only a reply from Network Rail staff stating that Hello Andy - done!, responding to the previous Network Rail could help... one.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Then you are not reading the discussion properly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Posters from my play director

Hello, recently I uploaded several posters as well as a photo of my play director, as she wants a Wikipedia page about her created (she has written many dramas and even had one performed on Broadway before). She's not very tech savvy and requested that I create her page along with an image of her and several images of posters of dramas she wrote. She sent these via WeChat which I then sent to my email to download to my computer. The photos were deleted because of copyright violations. However, she had these posters created for her dramas and so I believe she has copyright, but I don't know how to show that she has the rights to them. Is there a way for me to prove that she has the rights and has asked me to upload them?Bobth37 (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bobth37: For instructions on how to prove that you have the right to upload the images see Commons:OTRS. However, the English Wikipedia has strict rules around creating articles for people you know personally, as the writer can lose sight of their objectivity. I would advise you to read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before proceeding as you may find your work gets deleted fairly quickly. I would also advise following the en:Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to create the article and declare your conflict as described in that guidance.
If you are intending to write the article in a different language version of Wikipedia then different policies may apply; each language version of Wikipedia is fairly independent and set most of their own policies and procedures. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

File:AJWest.jpg

Hi. File:AJWest.jpg was uploaded with an incorrect author, licence and source. I've managed to track the source to a book originally published in 1976. The book's author notes that the photo was provided by the grandson of West. I can't verify the date of creation but the original uploader claimed 1897, which seems reasonable based on West's age and appearance in the photo.
West worked for a family firm of photographers, so it is doubtful that we could identify the precise aurhor. I've set {{PD-Scan|PD-old-assumed}} based on age and unknown author.
Would {{PD-1996}} be an appropriate US tag here?
Should we crop the caption at the bottom of the image? The text is from the book source and is what allowed me to trace its origin. However, the text is subject to the book's copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that you are right. You should also remove the caption. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Messages left by a grave

I was told people here might know about this topic.

By Jim Morrison's grave there is a tree where fans leave small messages in different ways. Since these are technically three dimensional collaborative art pieces, are pictures of them copyrighted even if they're uploaded to Flickr like here under an acceptable license?*Treker (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but if you are referring to the Jim Morrison buried in France, then COM:FOP France suggests it isn't acceptable for upload here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean the kind of image I liked above.*Treker (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I see no problem here. The contribution of each person is de minims in this context. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Neat. Good to know. I always get confused over copyright and stuff.*Treker (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The image given as an example in no way a "work of art", nor is the subject copyrightable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So it's Commons acceptable?*Treker (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@*Treker: Yes, those images are acceptable for Commons. Kaldari (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Andy Mabbett here. Short lines like "I love rock and roll" or "People are strange" are not eligible for copyright. A piece of chewing gum (?) stuck onto a tree (or any other object) will rarely qualify as a "work of art". Kneading that gum into some simple common shape like a letter or heart doesn't change that. (though in the UK it might) Ruslik is also right if any of the "works" were eligible for copyright: if you take a photo of a store shelf with hundreds of products, the subject of the photo is the store shelf. While any individual product would violate COM:PACKAGING, on the shelf as a whole each individual product label typically becomes de minimis. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A work of art in the process of being created

File:Glass Elephant.jpg is a very interesting thing, it is a work of art that is being created. I believe that once it were finished it is definitely creative and is copyrighted, but in this image we see it in the process of being created. I tend to think that it is still in public domain, since the process is technical in nature, and thus is not creative, even though the final shape is protected by copyright. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it's liquid in this state. Something that's liquid is not eligible for copyright protection. Angle and timing are the decision of the photographer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Man with wig meme.jpg

Seems to be a copyvio, what do you think?

--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Marked, contributor was vandalizing en.wp. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Smithsonian Releases 2.8 Million Images Into Public Domain

smithsonianmag.com February 25, 2020 -- Any plans for a centralized upload effort? --Taterian (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

GODL Licence

Under the GODL licence, the media belonging to the Government of India can be upload on Commons. However, the Lok Sabha website says "The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed. For any other re-use of the material you are required to seek permission by sending a mail to us." Does the new GODL policy take priority over this, or is the media from this website not eligible to be uploaded on Commons? Bharatiya29 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The white house photographers does the same with their photographs, it's a law in the US that the work must be in public domain still their exif data often embeds a very restricted license. And we don't delete those. // Eatcha (talk · contribs) 13:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I request anyone interested to take part in the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Lok Sabha MP images - GODL? so that a consensus can be reached. Bharatiya29 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Badge - Ontario Provincial Police.jpg

Is this file OK as licensed? I get that the photo is "own work", but I'm wondering about the copyright status of the patch itself. There's a similar file en:File:Ontario Provincial Police Logo.svg which was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but whose license was recently converted to {{PD-ineligible}} (see en:WP:MCQ#File:Ontario Provincial Police Logo.svg for relevant discussion on that). A similar perhaps more recent version of the logo/patch can be found here so it appear to be used by the en:Ontario Provincial Police. It's just that the copyright status of the patch is not clear. Are patches considered to be sort of the same as COM:COA or are they treated as COM:CB#Clothing or as COM:CB#Logos? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Works Progress Administration

Am I correct that art produced under the Works Progress Administration is necessarily public domain, since the artists were employees of the United States federal government? - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Correct Jmabel. Check out Category:Works Progress Administration and its sub-categories. Ww2censor (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Bihar_locator_map.svg

Is this file legally ok? Looks like it's traced/copied from other sources. File lists 15 sources, but all of these sources seem non-free. (Same would go for File:Bihar.India.png which uses this. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublah (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doublah: For maps and graphs, clear sources are needed to verify the map or graph, just like what Wikipedia requires. Though directly using these sources will be a copyright violation, it is OK to cite and use these data to make your own map.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

File:BADGE - Canada - ON - Ontario Provincial Police enamelled multicoloured (7966333438).jpg

This photo is sourced to Flickr and appears to be released under an acceptable license; I say appears because the source link states the file was removed from Flickr so there's no way to check the photos license at this time, determine why the file was removed, or whether the link is just bad. Another thing that's also not clear is whether the badge being photographed is not covered by its own copyright that's separate of the photo.

The badge looks like en:File:Ontario Provincial Police logo.png which was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content, but has since been converted to {{PD-Canada}}. I've been trying to figure when this badge/emblem might have been first publshed, but have been unable to do so. The template used locally on English Wikipedia is slightly different from the Commons one in that it doesn't seem to automatically assume that being within the public domain in Canada means being within the public domain in the US. If anyone can help clarify the provenence of this badge/emblem/insignia imagery, then might help sort things out with respect to the file uploaded to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the second part of your question, but regarding the Flickr license, the image was automatically reviewed by the FlickrreviewR bot when it was uploaded. This confirms that the image was available on Flickr under the stated license at that time. --Yarnalgo (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. The Flickr license does seem fine for the photo, which is what the FlickreviewerR bot checked; the bot, however, is most likely only just doing that and has no way of determining whether the photo is a COM:DW (i.e. a photo of an object which possibly might be eligible for its own copyright per COM:CB#Jewelry). If the badge imagery is still protected by copyright, then I don't think Commons can keep the photo regardless of its licensing per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: I'm not sure why you marked this discussion as being resolved since the copyright status of the badge imagery is still unclear, at least to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

How are artworks treated if the work was created long ago but the date of death of the author is not known?

Is there a rough rule to decide if a work is in the public domain if the work is very old but the date of death of the author is not known? Or possibly if the date of birth is also not known?

The fine fungus illustrations of Albin Schmalfuß (created around 1897) are used extensively in Commons and the Wikipedia projects, but I think his date of death and date of birth are unknown. His work was first published in Germany. Is his work in the public domain in Germany? Strobilomyces (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, finally I have found Template:PD-old-assumed, which seems to give the answer. But it seems to me that it is not documented in the normal help. Strobilomyces (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Strobilomyces: Can you suggest where it would be good to mention it? i.e. what do you mean by "the normal help"? Kaldari (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: The Template:PD-Art parameter documention mentions PD-old-auto and some other licenses but it should also mention PD-old-assumed. In the description of "deathyear" it should say something about what to do if the death year is unknown, such as that PD-old-assumed may be applicable. Instead of "Only used, if license was {{PD-old-auto}} or similar", it would be helpful if the exact list of licenses were specified. The Status "Required" for deathyear seems wrong.
I suppose "Help:Public domain" is the main relevant help page and it should have a paragraph about how to deal with the case where the year of death is unknown. Section "1.2.4 Published outside the United States" shows that this sort of work is in the PD in the US, but it is also necessary to show that the work is PD in the original publication country. I think that the section "2 Copyright terms by country" should have an additional paragraph mentioning how to approach the case where the work is probably out of copyright but the death date is unknown. A link to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Cut-off_date_for_the_PD-old_template or a summary of the conclusion should be given.
Possibly the page Commons:Licensing should also mention this case. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

фото ОДІС

Я не розумію що у вас відбувається. ОДИС єдина національна порода собак. Кілька років тому на російській сторінці ви гнабілі інформацію про породу. тепер прийшов час і на українській, на рідній сторінці. вся інформація з офіційного сайту КСУ. Фотографії власність національного клубу породи ОДІС. Вихідні тексти фотографій у мене, я маю повне право їх публікувати. У мене немає сил і бажання з вами боротися. якщо вам щось не підходить видаліть цю статтю на... . Виконавчий секретар національного клуб породи ОДІС Ірина Дорошина. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ІринаОДІС (talk • contribs) 17. Feb. 2020, 21:04:07 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/02&oldid=545328220"